Prashant Kishor's Jan Suraaj Party has taken Bihar's 2025 Assembly elections to India's Supreme Court, raising a constitutional question that could reverberate beyond one state: When does welfare become vote-buying?
The petition, scheduled for hearing before Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, challenges the legitimacy of the entire election. At its heart is a direct transfer of Rs 10,000 to women voters while the Model Code of Conduct was allegedly in force.
"The addition of new beneficiaries to the Mukhyamantri Mahila Rojgar Yojana and subsequent payments during the code of conduct period violated constitutional provisions," the petition argues. Bihar has 130 million residents—more than most countries—and when the government sends cash to voters weeks before an election, it's not just a state matter.
A billion people aren't a statistic—they're a billion stories. For Sunita Devi, a daily wage worker in Patna, that Rs 10,000 meant she could buy her daughter new school books. But it also meant she received government money from the party in power, just before voting.
The petition seeks several remedies: a declaration that the transfer scheme violated constitutional articles, fresh Assembly elections due to alleged corrupt practices, and new guidelines restricting welfare scheme implementations before elections are announced.
Kishor's petition also challenges the deployment of 1.8 lakh women beneficiaries from the JEEVIKA self-help group at polling stations, calling this arrangement "illegal and unfair."
The case tests India's Model Code of Conduct—the rules meant to ensure free and fair elections. Every election cycle, parties promise welfare schemes. But when does a promise become a payment? When does governance become campaigning?
Legal experts note the Supreme Court has previously struck down attempts to influence voters through government largesse. In 2013, the court ruled that distribution of color TVs, laptops, and other freebies could violate election laws. But direct cash transfers occupy a gray zone.
"This isn't about whether welfare schemes are good policy," says Professor Ramesh Kumar, a constitutional law expert at Delhi University. "It's about whether you can announce and implement them weeks before voting, targeting specific demographic groups that are critical vote banks."
The Election Commission has not yet responded publicly to the petition. Bihar's ruling coalition—led by Chief Minister Nitish Kumar in alliance with the BJP—has defended the scheme as legitimate governance.
But Kishor's challenge could set precedent far beyond Bihar. From Delhi to Karnataka, state governments have embraced direct benefit transfers as both welfare policy and political strategy. If the Supreme Court agrees these payments violated election rules, it could reshape how India's federal states govern in the run-up to polls.
Bihar went to polls in January with these transfers flowing into women's bank accounts. The ruling coalition won decisively. Whether that victory stands may now depend on India's highest court.
For 70 million women voters in Bihar—half the electorate—the case asks a fundamental question about Indian democracy: Are you a citizen receiving your rights, or a voter being bought?
